COSCAP - SACOSCAP - SA

LEGAL REQUIREMENT

ICAO

ICAO Annex 6 para. 8.9.1 requires an operator of large transport aircraft to ‘monitor and assess maintenance and operational experience with respect to airworthiness…..’

LEGAL REQUIREMENT

FAA

FAR 121.373(a) requires that the ‘operator’ shall establish and maintain a system for the continuing analysis and surveillance of the performance and effectiveness of its inspection program and the program covering (maintenance), and for the correction of any deficiency in those programs………...

LEGAL REQUIREMENT JAR -OPS 1.035 Quality Systems.

requires the establishment of a quality system to monitor compliance with an the adequacy of procedures required to ensure ……and airworthy aeroplanes. Compliance monitoring must include a feed-back system…..

1.910(a) Operators maintenance Program.

The program will be required to include a reliability program……(refer also AMC OPS 1.910a

BackgroundBackground Early air carrier maintenance programs

were based on the belief that each part of an aircraft required disassembly for inspection.

BackgroundBackground

Time limitations were established for maintenance and sometimes the entire aircraft was disassembled.

This process is known as ‘HARD TIME’ (HT)

MSG-1 With the advent of the B747 more cost

effective maintenance methods were needed.

MSG -2MSG -2 MSG 1 & 2 introduced the primary

maintenance process called “ON-CONDITION” (OC)

OC classified components are component’s whose continued airworthiness can be determined by scheduled inspection/test; such as visual, measurement or other tests that does not require disassembly.

MSG - 2MSG - 2 Regulatory control of ‘HT’ & ‘OC’

programs was, and is, not efficient. To address this problem a method of

program application and control was established that looked at “mechanical performance” rather than trying to predict a wear out point by inspection.

MSG- 2MSG- 2 This new method was called “reliability

control”. “Reliability Control” is a system that

monitors and maintains component “failure rates” below a predetermined value.

Components and systems that were not assigned a primary maintenance process (Continued)

MSG - 2MSG - 2 .. Of either “Hard Time” (HT) or “On-

Condition” (OC) were assigned a primary maintenance process called “Condition Monitoring” (CM)

A component or system maintained under CM does not respond to the ‘HT’ or ‘OC’ process and therefore has no scheduled servicing or inspection to determine the airworthiness of the item.

FAILURE PATTERNS Before we go any further we should have

an understanding of failure patterns. An appreciation of this concept is essential to understand the philosophy and background of Reliability schemes.

The study of numerous component life histories have shown that their behaviour is invariably as that shown in the familiar "bath tub" curve. Let us consider this curve section by section.

A B C DTIME IN SERVICE

Wear out period

Fai

lure

Rat

e‘BATH TUB CURVE’

A B

FAILURE PATTERNS Section A - B

– This portion is the "early failure or infant mortality" area. Failure rates are high and are caused by design and manufacturing problems. The remedy is redesign, and improved quality control.

– After these problems have been overcome the problem remains although at a reduced failure rate level. In this case the failures are caused by faulty maintenance practices, errors during re-assembly of the component and installation into the system.

B C

FAILURE PATTERNS - Section B - C

Having passed point B the failure rate becomes substantially constant, and lower than in the A - B area. Failures which occur in the B - C area are known as "chance or random failures", and do not exhibit any fixed pattern.

FAILURE PATTERNS - Section B - C (continued)

The almost constant failure rate in section B - C is of great importance in Reliability schemes. Failures which do occur in section B - C are brought about by random occurrences, such as unexpectedly high transient voltage, vibration etc.

Depending on the nature of the component, section B - C may be long or short.

A B C D

FAILURE PATTERNS - Section C - D

– This section shows a rapid increase in failure rates compared to B - C as the component is entering the "wear out" phase, and a fixed pattern of failures can be expected. Note that the "random failure" mechanism will still occur as it did in B - C and A - B, so there may be some failures which do not fit the emerging pattern.

– The establishment of point C is extremely important in Reliability schemes.

– This section shows a rapid increase in failure rates compared to B - C as the component is entering the "wear out" phase, and a fixed pattern of failures can be expected. Note that the "random failure" mechanism will still occur as it did in B - C and A - B, so there may be some failures which do not fit the emerging pattern.

– The establishment of point C is extremely important in Reliability schemes.

FAILURE PATTERNS - Section C - D (continued)

– It is now obvious that the optimum time for overhaul is just prior to point C. We may be familiar with a regulated escalation process using a method, whereby we inch our way along section B - C hoping to stumble on point C by inspecting samples.

– The establishment of point C by other methods, for some classes of components is another important aspect of Reliability schemes.

MSG - 3MSG - 3

The development of new aircraft types, (757/767, A310) and the recognition of problems with MSG-2, resulted in recommendations for a new set of guidelines be established to cope with these problems and changes. These proposals were eventually developed into MSG-3.

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued) Scheduled Maintenance Program

– MSG-3 has expanded the objectives of MSG-2. The objectives of MSG-3 still emphasize safety, reliability, and economy, but have gone beyond MSG-2 by:

* Restoring equipment to specification once it has deteriorated

* Collecting data to monitor equipment

* Providing information that may be required for redesign in order to improve reliability

MSG - 3 (continued) MSG - 3 (continued)

A Maintenance Program should ensure aircraft safety, operating efficiency, and minimize deterioration of the inherent reliability. Reliability is established by:– the design of each item and– the manufacturing processes

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued)

Scheduled maintenance can only minimize deterioration of the inherent reliability, but not improve upon it.

On-aircraft failures will be minimized through preventive maintenance techniques at a minimum cost.

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued) The objectives of an efficient airline

maintenance program are:* To ensure realization of the inherent safety and

reliability levels of the equipment

* To restore safety and reliability to their inherent levels when deterioration has occurred

* To obtain the information necessary for design improvement of those items whose inherent reliability proves inadequate

* To accomplish these goals at a minimum cost, including maintenance costs and of residual failures

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued) MSG-3 improves upon MSG-2 in addressing

these objectives in the following areas:*Maintenance Significant Items (MSIs) are derived

using a "Top Down Approach”

*Task decision logic questions are made more rigorous. The logic requires progressively more conservative maintenance tasks up to and including redesign; i.e., in the absence of information concerning the applicability and effectiveness of a task, the next most conservative task must be considered.

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued)* Servicing and lubrication is included as part of the

logic diagram since this must be included to make a complete scheduled maintenance program

* MSG-3 is task oriented and not maintenance process oriented. This eliminates the confusion associated with the various interpretations of CM, OC, and HT. Instead of classifying a maintenance requirement as an HT, OC, or CM task, the specific task is identified. MSG-3 has added several types of tasks to the MSG-2 maintenance program. These additions help to delineate tasks more accurately than before.

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued)An efficient maintenance program does not

schedule additional tasks which will increase maintenance costs without a corresponding increase in reliability protection. The tasks in an MSG-3 scheduled maintenance program include:

* Lubrication/Servicing

* Operational/Visual Check

* Inspection/Functional Check

* Restoration

* Discard

* Combination tasks

MSG - 3 (continued)MSG - 3 (continued) Applicability and Effectiveness.

Every task selected must meet the criteria established for applicability and effectiveness. Selecting only those tasks which meet the applicability and effectiveness criteria prevents selecting task based on habit or tradition. If the answers to the task selection questions are justified based on applicability and effectiveness, only the appropriate tasks will be selected.

(End)

Fundamentals

Each operator is different. The operator’s operational

environment will be reflected in his reliability program.

There are four (4) general categories of an operator’s maintenance program.

“Systems/components” “Powerplants/components” “Aircraft/engine checks and

inspections” “Structural inspection/overhaul”

All four groups can be controlled by a composite program or each may be handled separately.

For example: the basic engine may be maintained on “HT” and the engine accessories may be controlled by “OC” or the entire engine may be on “HT”

Hard - Time (HT)

On-Condition (OC)

Condition-Monitoring (CM)

A Preventive maintenance process

It requires that a part be overhauled in accordance with a predetermined period of time, e.g. 2000 hours, flights or cycles.

It may require that the unit be withdrawn from service and scrapped, e.g landing gear member with a fatigue life of 10 years or a turbine wheel with a life of 20,000 cycles.

A preventive maintenance process

If requires that a part be periodically inspected or checked against a physical standard to determine whether it can stay in service.

The purpose of the standard is to remove the part from service, before failure, during normal operation, occurs.

A primary maintenance process where the part or component is not being maintained by the HT or OC process.

The part or component is allowed to fail.

The failure rate is monitored by statistical analysis

Complex multicell units may be subject to control by two or three of the primary processes.

The predominant process will determine its classification.

E.g. the B747 Modular Package - Stab. Cont. has CM assigned as the primary maintenance process, but a leak check (OC task) is also scheduled.

The basic engine has characteristics that involve all three primary processes

Programs that control engine major overhauls consider the engine as a hard time unit.

Programs controlling shop maintenance to a ‘conditional’ standard may classify thee engine as ‘OC’ or ‘CM’

Assignment of an appropriate maintenance process requires strict adherence to the analysis method described in the MSG document.

(Examples follow)

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

DATA COLLECTION DATA ANALYSIS CORRECTIVE ACTION PERFORMANCE STANDARDS DATA DISPLAY AND REPORT MAINTENANCE INTERVAL AND

PROCESS CHANGE PROGRAM REVISION

The system must include a specific flow of information; identity of data sources, and procedures for the transmission of data.

Responsible persons must be identified in the organization for each step.

Pilot reports In flight engine

performance data

Mechanical delays Engine shutdowns Unscheduled

removals Confirmed failures

Functional checks

Bench checks Shop findings Sampling Input. Inspection info SDR

BASICS OF ANALYSIS

Data analysis is the process of evaluating mechanical performance data to identify characteristics indicating a need for change: modifications, revision of maint. practices etc.

The initial step is to compare the data to a standard representing acceptable performance.

The standard may be a running average, graphs, charts etc. or any means of depicting a “norm”

Alert ChartDC9 Oil Pressure Xmitter

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Time

Nu

mb

er

of

rem

ov

als

Series1 1 2 1 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 3 5

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Alert level established at 4

Alert level exceed - positive action required

Statistical performance stds - Alert type programs.

A performance measurement expressed numerically in terms of PIREPS, component failures etc.

The system uses control limits or alert values based on accepted statistical methods e.g.. Standard deviation

The standard may be adjustable to meet seasonal changes etc.

GA F28 - 3000/4000 PILOT REPORT

Total Flight Hours 770 813 773 2356 6201

ATA CHAPTER J UN J UL AUG Last 3 12 Month J UN J UL AUG 3 Month 12 Month Alert Alert TREND

Month 1998 RATE RATE RATE RATE RATE LEVEL STATUS

21 AIR CONDITIONING 9 12 8 27 1 11.69 14.75 7.75 11.45 0.15 20.27

22 AUTOFLIGHT 16 36 10 62 0 20.78 44.28 12.94 26.32 0.00 17.88

23 COMMUNICATION 16 18 9 43 2 20.72 22.14 11.64 18.25 0.32 30.02

24 ELECTRICAL POWER 13 5 7 25 4 15.53 5.15 9.06 10.61 0.65 17.16

25 EQUIPMENT/FURNISHING 5 2 1 6 0 6.49 2.46 1.29 3.40 0.00 5.53 DOWN

26 FIRE PROTECTION 2 0 3 5 0 2.60 0.00 3.88 2.12 0.00 2.01 RED-1

27 FLIGHT CONTROLS 13 12 15 40 3 18.85 14.76 19.40 16.96 0.48 15.17 RED-1

28 FUEL 5 15 4 24 1 9.45 78.45 5.17 10.19 0.16 5.32

29 HYDRAULIC POWER 2 5 4 11 1 2.50 5.15 5.17 4.57 0.16 3.91 RED-2

30 ICE & RAIN PROTECTION 3 5 4 13 0 3.90 7.38 5.17 5.52 0.00 4.33 RED-2

31 INSTRULIENTS 0 1 2 3 1 0.00 1.23 2.59 1.27 0.16 0.94 RED-2 UP

32 LANDING GEAR 17 14 19 50 12 22.09 17.22 24.58 21.22 1.84 26.97

33 LIGHTS 9 12 15 36 3 11.69 14.76 19.40 15.28 0.48 10.46 RED-3 UP

34 NAVIGATION 24 21 31 75 14 31.17 25.83 40.10 32.20 3.36 33.22 RED-1

35 OXYGEN 3 3 0 14 3 3.90 3.59 10.35 5.84 0.45 5.25 RED-1

36 PNEULATIC POWER 6 1 5 13 0 7.79 1.23 7.78 5.52 0.00 5.21 RED-1

37 WATER/WASTE 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.42 0.00 0.94 RED-1

45 CENTRAL MAINT SYSTEM 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

45 APU 20 6 34 63 4 25.97 7.38 43.96 25.47 0.65 23.36 RED-1

56 0 1 2 3 1 0.00 1.23 2.59 1.27 0.16 0.00 RED-2 UP

NOTE:

The Alert Level (AL) is based on monthly Pilot Report (PIREP) Rate of last four quarters(Average + 2.5 STD)

The ALERT Status column will show "RED-1" if the last month PIREP Rate exceed the AL "RED-2" if this is true for the last

two months and "RED-3" if this is true for last three months.The TREND column shows an "UP" or "DOWN" when the rate has increased or decreased for three months.

Mathematics

Pilot Report rate (PIREPS) =

Total PIREPS x 1000 Total Flying Hours

e.g.: ATA chpt 49, 34 pilot reports in August

34 x 1000 773 (TFH) = 43.98

INITIAL ALERT LEVELSA l e r t l e v e l : SX ½2 X = M e a n

S = S t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n

N = N u m b e r r e a d i n g s

S =1

)(2

n

XX

E x a m p l e c a l c u l a t i o nC o m p o n e n t – D C - 9 T r a n s m i t t e r , E n g i n e O i l P r e s s u r eP r e m a t u r e r e m o v a l s , - 1 , 2 , 1 , 2 , 1 , 3 , 0 , 2 , 0 , 1 , 3 , 1 . = 1 7 e a c hP r e v i o u s 1 2 m o n t h s

X = 1 7 = 1 . 4 11 2

X X - X ( X - X ) 22

121213020131

- 0 . 4 10 . 5 9

- 0 . 4 10 . 5 9

- 0 . 4 11 . 5 9

- 1 . 4 10 . 5 9

- 1 . 4 10 . 4 11 . 5 9

- 0 . 4 1

0 . 1 70 . 3 50 . 1 70 . 3 50 . 1 72 . 5 31 . 9 92 . 3 51 . 9 90 . 1 72 . 5 30 . 1 7

= 1 0 . 9 4 .

S = 111

94.10 ( v e r y n e a r l y )

A l e r t L e v e l = 1 . 4 1 + 2 , 5 x 1 = 3 . 9 1 U s e 4 .

Non alert type programs Data is compiled and used as a basis for

analysis e.g.. Flight log review, engine monitoring reports, incident reports, component analysis etc.

The number and types of information must be sufficient to provide a basis of analysis equivalent to the statistical standards program.

The objective of data analysis is: (a) recognize the need for corrective action (b) establish what corrective action is needed and (c) determine the effectiveness of that action.

Corrective Action: The actions taken must reflect the analysis and be positive enough to restore performance to an acceptable level in a reasonable time.

Maintenance Action Reliability Analysis Group isolate offending

aircraft or system Analysis conducted of the cause/s of the

increased rate of failure using: – PIREPS – component failure rates,– workshop reports, – operational changes, – modification status, – maintenance program change, etc.

Maintenance Action

E. O./instruction issued to change:– Component overhaul procedure– Overhaul/repair intervals– modification status– routine maintenance procedures– operational procedures– fault finding methods/engineer training

Maintenance Action Follow-up

Follow-up procedures must ensure that corrective action has reduced failure rate to an acceptable level.

??

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS